Things are a bit different in SF. While you have 468 stations, we have 44. Expansion of our public transportation system has been hampered by NIMBY homeowners who have done all they can to prevent it. Rents in areas that surround BART stations (http://www.bart.gov/stations/)are still quite high, except around some of the further out stops (http://rentheatmap.com/sanfrancisco.html). Unfortunately, the further you live from the city, the more it costs to commute to the city (http://www.bart.gov/tickets/calculator/).
So while everyone moving away from the city like folks in Manhattan do would be nice, it's not that easy here.
(Aside: I miss New York public transportation.)
I see that you're bringing up NIMBY, but that should be the area to focus on instead of somehow trying to control the underlying problem through things like rent control.
I personally see the California High Speed Rail system as an interesting option there. If they offer regular rail service and I can reach my work in Silicon Valley within 1 hour then I would consider moving out of Silicon Valley. Especially so if the city is interesting or becomes interesting through the increasing number of people moving there and if they offer Wifi on the train so that I could even start working there.
Our Public transportation system "MARTA" only operates fully throughout two counties in our metro area. The reason for this is that many citizens in the suburbs are afraid of what will happen if they provide easy access for urban "characters" that are presumed to be "bad or unsavory" because they cant afford a car. (I live in one such county)
Every time there are talks of expanding MARTA (train or bus lines) to other counties people come out in protest.
It's actually quite easy for people to not live in the central city, which is why of the 7.15 million people in the SF Bay Area metropolitan area, only a little over 800,000 live in the City and County of San Francisco. The ratio between the population of San Francisco and that of the whole metro area isn't really all that different than the ratio of Manhattan's population to that of the New York Metro Area.
I thought the article proved that people don't live in the city because there isn't enough housing and/or it's too expensive, not because it's easy to live outside the city.
The article didn't prove anything, it started with mistaking anecdote for data, and proceeded to tell a just-so story to explain the anecdote, and then make a series of value claims about what needs to be done based on that just-so story, explicitly grounding those claims in at least one false fact claim (that the three high population bay area cities are the places with "the space" in the bay area to accept a disproportionate share of the region's growth.)
I can actually see it both ways, but you have to accept or reject the argument in it's entirety instead of setting some artificial cap for how much you have to earn to be able to live in SF, which is essentially what's happening today.
And by the way this is a poor free-market argument. If this was a free-market, regulatory actors would act rationally from an economic perspective and allow construction of as many new units as the market can bare.
A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).
With decent urban planning, the region could maximize its growth potential. Without it, we'll have major issues in the near future.
Developers have done a good job of buying off the media, and the Chronicle has never waivered from its support of those sectors that still advertise in its pages. That's why many of us are not sad to see the otherwise well written paper giving way to Internet new sources that, this article excepted, are less inclined to skew their editorial policy in favor of anything real-estate (-development) related.
It doesn't seem so ridiculous if you follow the money. The author is "executive director of SPUR, a Bay Area nonprofit membership organization" whose directors, advisors and members are comprised almost exclusively of real-estate developers and investors.
The current Berkeley Daily Planet goes in to some detail about this sort of non-profit, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-11/article/... as does the Bay Guardian in its "Friends in the Shadows" expose http://www.sfbg.com/2013/10/08/friends-shadows You'll never read these sorts of in-depth articles in the rest of the Bay Area's real-estate advertising filled newspapers.
Furthermore, unless you get stuck out multiple times a week half the rent cost still puts you way ahead. I was paying $1200 with parking for 800 sq ft and a dishwasher right on Lake Merritt. I never felt in danger there.
Living in Emeryville on San Pablo was another story... That was only $600 though ha.
QFT. The thousand-plus dollar difference in rent buys a heck of a lot of "I got stranded" Uber/Taxi rides.
Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right.
> how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more?
They won't, that's the magic of a free market. Wages/salaries will go up in the city so that it's always still "worth it".
> Do you really want them all [families] moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city?
I mean, why not? I live in NYC. Plenty of people I know leave NYC when they want to start a family. Or at a minimum, they leave Manhattan to move out to Brooklyn or Queens.
You can see how ridiculous the argument is, by the fact that its polar opposite sounds the same: "do you really want all the families who would be helping to grow the east bay, moving into downtown SF?"
Look, there are certainly coordination, transit, etc. problems with the Bay Area. And there are income-disparity problems nationwide. But people seem to confuse those with just being afraid of change/gentrification, and that doesn't help.